Sunday, 1 June 2014
Hell hath no fury. Again.
I thought it might be a laugh to have a look at a few of her responses to other posters.
This one caught my eye
Textusa31 May 2014 15:12:00
Unpublished anon at 31 May 2014 12:15:00
We will say it again that we will not feed any sort of fights inter-blogs, namely with JH fórum. We consider the forum as a whole as a very relevant and valuable contribution to the quest of truth.
The fact that some posters dislike us, is a simple reality of life. One cannot please all and those who try fail simply because they have gotten distracted from the message they originally intended to convey.
We are glad that the majority of the criticism we get is about form and not content. Content may be debated, form is subjective and, again, one can simultaneously please some and produce the opposite effect on others.
Oh no - you get plenty about content too. Here is some of your fan mail
''I do find the tortuous presentation of Textusa unnecessary.
By making the text so visually and linguistically challenging and with so many unnecessary repeats it has the appearance of an oracle delivered by a priestess via a randomly bolding word processor''
''The bits I bolded are supposition not fact, textusa is referring to previous explanations which are also suppositions.''
'' I have to admit, that I don't read her posts anymore. It's taking too much time to try and figure out where's she heading for ...''
''I find it literally unreadable. Literally - it defies being read. Attempting to do so actually gives me a headache.''
''I had to give up half way through due to brain pain.''
''.....the swinging theory is crazy''
Heartwarming, isn't it? More of that later. For now, back to the barmy one....We have assumed upfront that we are an “over-21 blog”. We accept that we don’t produce a “fast-food” product. Using that analogy, someone whose diet consists of greasy hamburgers and pizzas cannot be expected to appreciate the full complexities involved in a gourmet meal. That lack of appreciation is not the result of the chef’s fault but of the mouth of the critic.
Do you follow that? She is basically saying you are all oiks who can't keep up with her. And that you're common and eat greasy food. Such charm
But what fascinates us is the inability of people reading our long, long obfuscated literacy but are able to sift through thousands of pages of boring and complex information that is in the PJ Files. It’s like whenever “Textusa” appears on the screen a “duh” switch toggles on in their brain. Once “Textusa” is off, it toggles off and all their intelligence returns.
Ah - and the reason you struggle with her posts is because you are thick. Lovely.
If it's any comfort, I can confirm that as a general rule the ones who fawn all over her and tell her how wonderful she is are so dense that light actually bends around them.
What some have failed to understand is that when some, specifically, move against us, that attitude is to readers of the case something that only strengthens our position and not weaken it.
Uh huh. Okaaaaay
And within JH they have one of the biggest example of what we’re talking about: Tony Bennett. The man has taken criticism from left and right and sometimes in a vile and absurd manner. Has that strengthened or weakened his position before our eyes? You answer that
Well, he's floundering about like a turd in a shipping lane at the moment, Text, after his almighty fuck up on the FOI front, so yes, he's looking a bit of a twat, thanks for mentioning it.
It’s an honour and a huge compliment to be criticised by some.
Anytime, petal. Anytime.
About the retro-fitting you mention. Obviously any retro-fitting done in relation to the meals at Tapas bar only prove our point. It wasn’t only the McCanns who invented these dinners. The Ocean Club is part of the invention from minute one. It’s not the case of McCann’s change their statement but that of Ocean Club confirming outright an invented story. In the much the same way, the retro-fitting would mean the cooperation of Ocean Club in the doing.
Ah, and you were doing so well, you hadn't mentioned imaginary dinners for five whole minutes. Face it, Textusa, your theory is total wank.
Saying that they never sat all 9 at the table at one time so it wasn’t that big as is ridiculous as it comes. The reservation was made for 9 and not we’re 9 but only will be at most 7 at the table at one time. In fact, according to their statements, on the night of the 3rd, at the beginning of the evening, all 9 sat around the table.
I do apologise, ladies and gentlemen, I'm afraid she's started to gibber again. We'll have to stop it there, if we let her carry on for too long like this - well, last time she got very upset and did a poo on the carpet, so......it's okay, the orderlies have got her now.
We'll round off with a bit more fan mail, shall we?
''You'll never catch me saying that Textusa's blogs contain little more than hectoring, baseless garbage....
I can run much too fast..''.
''In my opinion it simply isn't worth the effort of trying to wade through the excessively verbose and unfriendly presentation because all you end up with is the nonsense that textusa promotes''
''I happen to believe that textusa spouts nonsense''
''Textusa her/him/itself doesn't exactly set a very good example of how you should treat people who don't agree with you. A little more humility might not come amiss - never mind a full set of brevity lessons.''
''I find textusa's assertion in the 'stinkbombs' post that - paraphrased - 'if you aren't a friend of textusa blog, you aren't there for the truth' really offensive and, honestly, bollocks.''
''if I was ever in the situation of any of the Tapas lot picking my keys out I'd tell 'em to keep my car
(I included the last one because it made me laugh my arse off)
With thanks and acknowledgements to all the posters I have quoted. Cheers.
Posted by Not Textusa at 18:32